Disinforming is the deliberate giving of a false impression. This can be done both explicitly and implicitly, verbally and non-verbally, intentionally and unintentionally (in the case of passing along disinformation, making it the focus of a discussion...). The official explanation for the events of 9/11 thus qualifies as disinformation.

The covering-up of such a hoax involves lots of a specialized form of disinformation: information that, while often true, diverts and distracts attention from more revealing truths. An example of this form of 9/11-specific disinformation would be to speak of the melting point of steel, as if only thousands of degrees were present at ""Ground Zero"". Or, for that matter, to speak of the burning temperature of jet fuel, as if it is an unquestionable given that Boeing 767s crashed into the twin towers. Of course, given that time is a finite resource, and the way everything tends to distract from everything else, every minute spent thinking about football, or sex, or food is another minute during which the monstrous lies of 9/11 remain safe from discovery by whomever is thinking those other thoughts.

So 9/11 disinfo is basically a 1-2 punch: the event itself (fortified by the power of The Big Lie, shock-and-awe, "what everybody knows"...), which placed the mistaken beliefs in everyone's mind, and a whole lot of limited truths and alternate lies and just plain noise afterward, to keep people's minds from readily finding [m]any correct beliefs.

The most efficient way of using disinformation to assist in a cover-up is to establish a fake "movement", to attract individual skeptics, like moths to a flame, and get them to ideologically align with the leaders of the fake anti-government movement, much the same way middle-America aligned itself with the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11. (in fact, neither group can bring themselves to believe that all of 'their' opinion leaders would lie to them) The social forces that engender "groupthink" can be used to keep certain pieces of evidence from being [properly] considered, and for certain ideas to be deemed unacceptable by the group (for eg, followers of 911truth.org are far less willing and able to question the core 9/11 lies about "planes" and "hijackers" than are people who've never been skeptical about 9/11!), and so certain questions will not get asked, thus preventing certain answers from ever becoming known.

The misleaders of such a false movement typically will only resort to overt lies of commission when necessary to protect major aspects or unraveling points of whatever lies have been perpetrated. It is much harder to notice, much less to demonstrate bad intent involved in, lies of omission...

Major recognized 9/11-lie-sustaining disinformation campaigns within the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Perpetuate the unfounded belief that we can still blame 9/11 on "hijackers", even though we already know -- the 3 WTC skyscrapers came down unnaturally fast -- that we cannot blame their demise on "airplanes", hijacked or otherwise! Chatter about "Able Danger" and the 8/6/01 PDB and Osama and "caves in Afghanistan" and "the hijackers" and "the 20th hijacker" and "the airplanes" and "all that jet fuel" fosters this logical disconnect, and serves to support and sustain the core lie of the government's impossible, disproven, discredited conspiracy theory of 9/11. The videos Farenheit 911, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, 911 Press For Truth, Zeitgeist, and the very spooky Who Killed John O'Neill? all claim to be about 9/11 truth, yet they promote and reinforce, sometimes subliminally, the unsubstantiated but propagandized belief that 9/11 was blowback perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. (exculpatory evidence: 123)

Since Job One of most false-flag operations is enemy creation, it is probably true that the best single measure of a truthful 9/11 presentation's merit is how impossible the presenter makes it to go on blaming purported "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Since that is the most important part, the very core, of The Big Lie of 9/11 now being protected, you can find many prominent fake 911truth 'leaders' who rightly insist that we cannot blame the so-called collapses of the towers on planes (hijacked or otherwise), but who are equally -- and wrongly -- insistent that we can take the same lying government's word for what hit the towers and why (note how they toss in the phrase "the planes" every chance they get, perhaps using Orwellian doublethink -- the ability people have to keep mutually contradictory beliefs alive in their minds -- but disinforming simply by continually referring to a core fictitious element of the lies of 9/11 as if it was real). Exposing one lie (an important but lesser one, to gain standing and credibility as an apparently honest 9/11 activist) while protecting another (a more critical one, to sustain the legend; also make it seem as if it's reasonable even for people who've seen through some of the big 9/11 lies to continue to fall for the hateful core enemy-creating cover story lie about "hijackers") is and long has been a standard M.O. for many of the fake 911truth leaders.

Suppress (or distort+dismiss) all evidence which makes it clear that the aircraft which crashed on 9/11 were not the ones we were told. That includes, but is hardly limited to, the Naudet video "flash frame", anomalies in the WTC2 videos, the excessive size of the Hollywood-perfect WTC2 fireball, and the Pentagon video evidence released by the U.S. government. Talk of "jet fuel" (see #1) is a powerful subliminal tie-in with this, but that effect can also be unintentional, such is the power and structure of The Big Lie. Since the core "hijackers" lie collapses if the "hijacked airliners" lie does, the truth-suppressing lie-protectors must systematically label and denigrate and attack and smear and marginalize those honest independent 9/11 truth sites which present evidence that disproves (or even seriously calls into question) this key aspect of the government's version of events, and attribute false claims to them (see #5, below). Such divisive behavior can act as a powerful form of hidden-in-plain-view social censorship, provided there are enough mutually-supportive participants in the Web Of Disinformation to form a clamorous but respectable perceived majority that will never honestly refer to the lie-shattering evidence as they attract people to an alternate-mainstream watered-down limited-hangout version of The Big Lie, and gatekeep them away from full disclosure, thus shielding The Big Lie from lie-killing observations even as they pretend (and seem) to oppose it.

Keep people from realizing that what became of the twin towers was truly supernatural. "Controlled Demolition", using chemical explosives, is now being bandied about. While this does infer that we cannot blame the 'collapses' on "airplanes", we already knew that, and CD acts as a limited hangout by distracting people from the realization that something highly unconventional was involved in turning so much of the towers into unnaturally fine nanoparticles, generating the huge pyroclastic (dense heated debris) flows, and leaving behind enough energy to keep metal molten for weeks afterward and 'fires' 'burning' for 99 days despite constant dousing with water:

Included in the nothing-very-special-about-it CD limited-hangout disinfo campaign are the spreading of misinformation which falsely states that pyroclastic flows of debris are the normal outcome of "controlled demolition", and that what happened to the twin towers can be adequately thought of and described as "controlled demolition". But the acts of referring to nanoparticles as "dust" (and also misdirecting attention away from the surprising confirmed revealing presence of so many nanoparticles by dwelling on what compounds were in the 'dust', or continually drawing attention to the average particle size), misdescribing/downplaying pyroclastic flows of debris by referring to them as "dust clouds", and downplaying/understating molecular dissociation by referring to it as "pulverization" (or "vaporization") amount to saying, "Nothing too terribly unusual to see here, Citizen. Move along.", which we all recognize as the basic patter of gatekeepers.

Spread false beliefs and confusion regarding President Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements. Clearly there is something very special about Bush's statements, both for what they evidently reveal (prior knowledge -- in the form of video of the opening salvo of the 'surprise' attack -- at the highest level of the U.S. government!), and for the fact that those who supposedly oppose Bush and purportedly investigated 9/11 have never addressed them. Now we see disinformers, in the guise of revealing truth about 9/11, talking authoritatively -- if at all -- about Bush's statements as "erroneous" or "impossible" or "lies" without any supportive evidence whatsoever, and thus dismissing the statements without them having ever been properly considered. The primary ways of doing so amount to saying, "Nothing to see here, Citizen. Just Bush lying again. Move along.", even though there is zero evidence that Bush was lying or even mistaken. One such tactic is to propagate the false belief that plenty of people saw the 1st WTC impact on TV that morning, and/or the lie that Bush referred to an "ordinary" TV. Another favorite false predicate is the supposition that since CNN still didn't have any video of the 1st WTC impact that morning, Bush couldn't have seen the first hit on TV then, as if POTUS only gets the same channels as everyone else. There is also a legend-protecting notion that no videos of the 1st impact other than the Naudet video could possibly exist since we've never seen any. And the crowning misperception is a deep-seated underlying belief that since Democrats have never questioned Bush's loose-lips-sink-ships statements, there must not be anything very incriminating about them. The result of being immersed in so much disinformative propaganda is that Bush's self-implicating statements remain uninvestigated, and everyone has their own peculiar notion of why there's nothing wrong with that...

Try to confuse and misdirect people regarding theory creation/disproof.It only takes 1 counter-example to disprove a theory, including the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11. So participants in the fake 911 truth movement obscure the fact that "19 guys with boxcutters did all that" is a conspiracy theory (albeit an incredibly lame one). Further, the disinformers (including fake 911-truthers) say that if you notice something wrong with the government's theory that hijacked Boeing passenger airliners are what hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, that must mean that you have a "no-plane theory"!!! Besides falsely framing the argument, such statements are a form of misdirection: Noticing something wrong with an existing theory does not necessarily mean that you are trying to advance a theory of your own, nor should it. In order to disprove a(n impossible) theory, a (superior) theory is not required; it only takes one counter-example to show that an existing theory is impossibly false (and ought to be rejected).

One aim of this confusion seems to be to get innocent 9/11 truth-seekers to feel comfortable with the idea of seeing theselves as conspiracy theorists, presumably based upon the realization that evil elements within the government somehow perpetrated 9/11 or at least the government has been less than completely forthcoming about it. But that not only helps divert attention from the fact that the government's claims regarding 9/11 are themselves a disprovably wild conspiracy theory, it also makes these proud and meticulous new conspiracy theorists very reluctant to refer to highly questionable governmedia evidence, because what would that do to the credibility of their theory? (and that fallacious fear facilitates the next campaign...)

Try to get people to disregard the evidence which proves that the government is lying about 9/11. One such tactic is to focus on the unavailable evidence rather than the existing evidence. One good example of this is WTC steel which was removed, instead of closely examining for evidence of molecular dissociation that very special dust which remained everywhere (see #3, above). Another example is the 5 Pentagon Video Frames released by someone from within the U.S. government on March 7, 2002: If those frames are real, they prove that the government lied to us about 9/11, because the first frame shows us an obscured attacking aircraft which is too small to be a 757. And if the frames are not real, that also proves that the government has deceived us regarding the true nature of 9/11, and also obstructed justice into the investigation. So the disinformers have covertly banded together to subtly tell people, to try to convince them, that they cannot trust and therefore should not even consider such lie-breaking evidence because they can't be sure that it is real, despite the fact that it destroys the caught-lying government's credibility either way. This campaign ties in with #2 and #5, above. The disinformers also try to get honest 911truthers to concern themselves with Pentagon attack videos believed to exist, which the government has never released, and which therefore have never been seen, instead of promoting the already-published lie-breaking video evidence. The duplicitous 911truth opinion leaders manage to cause malleable 911 truthers to be fearful of what those still-unreleased videos might someday show (if they were ever released), in a pathetic (but surprisingly effective "what would that do to our credibility?" -- see #5, above) attempt to keep those who've looked into 9/11 quiet about, and even disregard, the lie-breaking and/or government-credibility-shattering evidence We The People already have.

Another campaign with a similar effect is being carried out by those who state that [all?] the videos of the aerial WTC collisions are fake. Loud cries of pervasive "video fakery" not only divert skepticism away from the governmedia's claims, but also discourage honest 911 truth seekers from pointing out video evidence which calls into question the official version of events. If questioned, the "video fakery" folks are likely to say that the unexplained flash seen immediately prior to any other hint of damage is "just a flash", as if it is undeserving of any attention or even comment, so it does not matter that neither the government nor the media has ever addressed the strange-looking imagery in the only publicly-seen video of the 1st WTC aerial impact. In effect, they've explained away (or just plain discarded) the unexplained, on behalf of the same governmedia they're supposedly opposing. Further, they can not explain how they've been able to discern, with certainty, a fake video of a real airplane from a real video of a fake one. But that doesn't seem to matter to such people, which is fully consistent with the aims of gatekeepers, who seek to keep viable possibilities from ever coming into our heads while at the same time filling our heads with alternatives. And dismissing the WTC video evidence as "fake" is another way of saying, "Nothing real to see here, Citizen. Move along.", which also just happens to coincide with the goals of those who seek to help keep the full truths of 9/11 hidden from the public.

The false-flag "9/11 truth movement" itself! The visible leaders of this limited-opposition self-named so-called movement suppress the most revealing evidence, and deftly 'fail' to connect the most meaningful dots, thus enfeebling the 'movement' and enabling the government's impossible conspiracy theory to remain alive (in part by raising and sustaining [mere] doubt in its impossible elements). 911truth.org and various agents and tentacles comprise a kind of groupthink network: In something resembling cult behavior, naive honest trusting 911truthers just assume that the few dozen most prominent mutually-supportive (but sometimes fake-opposing) professors and doctors and researchers and activists are all intelligent, well-motivated, sincere leaders who truly oppose the lies of 9/11 with all their intellect, and so anything beyond what those exalted credentialed leaders allude to must not exist or be of any significance -- thus even when the trusting followers see lie-breaking evidence for themselves, they will tend to disregard it, because their trusted opinion leaders have long ignored it and/or provided them some pretext why it should be. Forming a limited-truth fake-opposition boundary like that (so everyone will assume that the truth 'must' reside somewhere between the government's lies and the truth movement's leaders' half-truths and limited lies) is a recognized powerful effect of the Hegelian dialectic, which itself usually goes unrecognized by those who are immersed in it. The best way of protecting the lies of 9/11 is to attract those skeptical of the lies, gain their trust, and collectively herd them away from certain realizations without their realizing it. And because those trusted 'leaders' keep referring to the most central of the fictitious elements of The Big Lie as if they were real, their thus-slightly-brainwashed trusting followers have little chance of ever thinking their way out of those most pivotal fallacies and fictions, so The Big Lie remains standing, in full effect -- and it's "mission accomplished" for the hidden-in-plain-view 911pravda apparatus.

NOTE: Just because you notice a person or video or web site which has engaged in one or more of these big-lie-protective behaviors does not necessarily mean that they understood how they were protecting The False-Flag Legend of 9/11. But if you ask the author about it, and you get a reply which does not withstand scrutiny, you should eventually become suspicious. Anyone can make a mistake, but when someone refuses to correct or even acknowledge an error (or corrects it but then goes back to making it), that makes the error seem intentional; ignorance only goes so far: When a person who is honestly mistaken is confronted by the truth, that person either stops being mistaken or stops being honest.